License key warning on localhost

[OrahChris]

hmm even after adding "-testinstall" When I try to activate the editor, after hitting submit it still defaults back to disabled? Anyone else having this issue? I have a legit lic key.

[Mark]

I was just directed to this message after requesting a change in my licensed URL. This is really helpful stuff. The only question i have is regarding purchased add-ons. With the "Test Key" i noticed your purchased add-ons are not listed in the service list associated with your license key. Will this effect being able to use for example IP.Gallery on my development installation?

No.

[Mark]

hmm even after adding "-testinstall" When I try to activate the editor, after hitting submit it still defaults back to disabled? Anyone else having this issue? I have a legit lic key.

It might be seeing the skin generator as an IPS Extra and blocking it for test keys - will take a look on Monday :)

[Chozo Sanctuary]

legacy licenselegacy license

From now on you can use your license key on a test installation. Enter your license key followed by "-TESTINSTALL" to activate.

There are some conditions:

• You may only have one installation
• Your license key must already be activated on a live installation and have been activated recently. If entering the "test" key doesn't work, try reactivating your main installation and then try again.
• The IPS Extras (spam service, iPhone notifications) are not available on test installations.
• IP.Chat is not available on test installations
• Your test install URL is logged and to enforce the "You may only have one installation" rule cannot be changed. Make sure you install your test install somewhere where it is unlikely you will need to move it. Attempting to use the "test" key on more than one installation will result in an error.
• This will only work on IP.Board 3.2.
  

Does "-TESTINSTALL" activation not work for legacy license holders?

[Ryan Ashbrook]

legacy licenselegacy license

Does "-TESTINSTALL" activation not work for legacy license holders?

It works just fine on the Legacy Perpetual and Lifetime licenses.

[tAPir]

It might be seeing the skin generator as an IPS Extra and blocking it for test keys - will take a look on Monday :smile:

It works just fine on the Legacy Perpetual and Lifetime licenses.

If by "works" you mean it disappears the red warning you're right :) If you mean the skin generator or VSE works then I'm just getting a message that my licence has expired even though it's a LIFE licence :(

[Michael]

It's funny how much discussion this created, and how many people apparently found this useful, but still it's not at all what I was hoping to have, and the new feature that was created as a result of this is not at all usable for what I was asking. Guess I'll just have to get used to seeing these annoying messages on my temporary localhost sites.

[RichardA]

If by "works" you mean it disappears the red warning you're right :smile: If you mean the skin generator or VSE works then I'm just getting a message that my licence has expired even though it's a LIFE licence :sad:

I think the VSE is only for active license (Support..) holders.. Life licenses do not have access to the VSE unless they convert their license type and pay the 6monthly fee.

[Peter.B]

It's funny how much discussion this created, and how many people apparently found this useful, but still it's not at all what I was hoping to have, and the new feature that was created as a result of this is not at all usable for what I was asking. Guess I'll just have to get used to seeing these annoying messages on my temporary localhost sites.

The slightly more annoying thing if you create multiple test installations on localhost (localhost as in it's local on your PC - only you're ever going to see or use this installation and it's not web accessible for those that didn't know the term) is that even if you changed the CSS to get rid of the warning message, you'll find that the skin editor is disabled. Not sure if it affects what additional packages you can install as well (not tried, it's quite probably fine)?

Thing is it's a perfectly legitimate scenario for people writing multiple mods that want a clean install per mod they're creating (it's a good way to be able to check if things are conflicting with one another), as well as those web developers who are mocking up sites on a laptop quickly to show to clients before actually clinching the deal (don't need to buy a license until you've got the work and can properly start work on the site) as well as those of us who dabble with various website ideas on their LAMP/XAMPP installations locally and only push one or two of them live each year or so (I'm in this category - testing out a few website ideas, but not sure which one to go with).

It's a very big, annoying message for those few of us that fall into any of the above dev-type categories, and we're not actually doing anything wrong (in the sense of we're not running live boards or doing anyone out of any money - I suspect that if the terms and conditions of use have now changed to reflect that you can have one live and one test install per license then legally it is wrong, but I would suggest that if that's the case even in the above scenarios then that shouldn't be the case).

I'm open to discussion on this, just please don't jump up and down and accuse me of being a pirate. I'm a deckhand at best In all seriousness, I've been a paying customer since 2005 so I'm not out to do anything malicious or to trick IPB out of any money.

[Mark]

I'm open to any better suggestions. I would have been happy to just hide the notice if the install url started with "http://localhost" but then HeadStand and Luke were kind enough to point out why that wouldn't be sufficient

[Mikorist]

i have

Ubuntu (linux) for my test forums at home

i go to Konslole:

sudo nano /etc/hosts

------


127.0.0.1 www.mydomain.com <---------- i put this line in /etc/hosts
127.0.1.1 localhost
127.0.1.1 root

# The following lines are desirable for IPv6 capable hosts
::1 ip6-localhost ip6-loopback
fe00::0 ip6-localnet
ff00::0 ip6-mcastprefix
ff02::1 ip6-allnodes
ff02::2 ip6-allrouters


------
save

after that

sudo /etc/init.d/networking restart <------------- i must do that 2-3 times to have change


after that i can via localhost from browser access virtually to www.mydomain.com

I have no need for any other license then real

in this way - can make perfect installation/convert/update at home puter - and transfer (database and files) to a real hosting and domain

I don't do anything on the net live (installation/convert/update) for several reasons - the biggest is a safety

[Dannyarr]

No.

There are a million reasons why this is bad - the most important one being that you cannot develop everything on 1 install since you no longer have a clean install and wont know if something is interfering with your mod until after you're done coding and run additional tests. What exactly is the harm of someone having whatever number of localhost test installs? It's not like they are / can be used for anything except for well... you know... testing?

[Peter.B]

I'm open to any better suggestions. I would have been happy to just hide the notice if the install url started with "http://localhost" but then HeadStand and Luke were kind enough to point out why that wouldn't be sufficient

I didn't see where they pointed that out... I think I must be misunderstanding you. If you mean this post of Luke's would bring the banne back although he's working locally, the IP address should still be 192.168.0.1:

I like the idea of hiding the notice if the url is http://localhost or the IP address is in the range of 192.168.0.1-192.168.0.255 (so basically it's local - even allow for a few subnets so do 192.168.2... and 192.168.0.3... and they'll still only be local and also allow for the scneario that someone at a big company is developing something internally) - seems to be the simplest solution and gets the job done. In fact, is EVERYTHING with an IP address starting 192.168. local? It would be a pretty easy check.

I think the thing to bear in mind is that anyone trying to be crafty and circumvent the license on a live site will probably get the nulled software from one of the less savoury download sites on the web anyway, whereas folks installing multiple copies on localhost aren't being crafty, and are probably also the ones most likely to be giving something back to the community in terms of mods, hooks, skins or whatever. I know it's not really penalising people the way it is at the moment, it's just an annoyance for people developing locally that wasn't there before ;)

[sunrisecc]

@Peter.b See post #41 for example.
I test my testboards on a real server. Localhost would do nothing for me. I have set up test domains for the testboards. I should enjoy the same privileges as localhost(ers).

[Peter.B]

Okay, in the case of Luke's point in post #41, if he wasn't required to enter a license for his localhost testing, then he could then use the -TESTINSTALL key on the "live" test site outside the localhost. I'm assuming that in that case he's wanting to develop locally (so my suggestion of no key for localhost works) and then test it somewhere on his development server before going live - is that right Luke?

sunrisecc - I'm just curious - why do you prefer to test on a real server? Not saying there's anything at all wrong with that - everyone has different ways of working - I'd just assumed that the majority (of the minority of us that are affected by this in some way) would develop/test locally and then maybe have one test install on a live server before pushing a site live.

[sunrisecc]

Because both WAMP/Xampp/ etc do not behave well of my computer. and I have unlimited use of a non-invision server, I prefer to test on a real server. This way I can also maintain the security needed on my business computers etc.

[Peter.B]

Thinking about this some more, I've come up with would probably be an unpopular suggestion - simply change it back to the way it was before, but still disable the skin editor unless a valid license is entered (assuming that's all a lack of license prevents from working).

Why? Well anyone malicious who's going to ignore the notice and has a little CSS knowledge can get rid of the error message, and anyone trying to circumvent things any more than that would probably just get a nulled copy of the script anyway.

I think that from my point of view at least, it's now similar to those annoying copyright ads at the beginning of DVDs (the ads, not the text notices). If you see the DVD copyright ads (the often awful anti-piracy ads that are all too "in your face" a lot of the time) then you've got a legitimate copy anyway and 99% of the time and it's not going to stop piracy - pirates don't just think "oh no, I'm doing a bad thing" and stop copying the DVD. In fact I would guess DVD pirates would just strip those copyright ads out, but the main point is they'd have done something illegal anyway - it's a no-brainer that it's illegal.

Perhaps just a small message that shows on the first page of the ACP might be the way to go. That way, the reminder is there and it's far less annoying (I get the feeling this is how it was beforehand but can't actually remember).

What you don't want to do is make honest developers do the nasty CSS edits to hide the message as that just means good people end up having to do bad things because of the illegal actions of others who would circumvent the measures anyway.

Sadly the only way to really enforce anything proactively to stop the bad guys would be to encode the software, and nobody wants that.

[Marius]

Can anybody post instructions on how to activate the Visual Skin Editor on a test installation, please?

[C. Waffles]

Just wondering but if someone were to want to test their board locally, then couldn't they just simply edit their hosts file to spoof that their board is being installed/used from their licensed domain?
If so, then I don't see the problem here. Also, being allowed an additional online test board using your license sounds like a nice addition.